finally, someone is starting to make some sense around here. Like I told them, "If you think it is so easy betting on the future, why don't you put on a contract and see how it goes for you?" But getting back to the minimum wage...
Has there ever been a liberal answer to "If a minimum wage is so great, why not make it $100 an hour?"
Sure! What would you like to discuss on it. I'm ready and waiting. What is it that we don't understand?
CBO:Top 40% Paid 106.2% of Income Taxes; Bottom 40% Paid -9.1%, Got Average of $18,950 in 'Transfers' - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ter...aid-91-got-average-18950#sthash.jhk3YpII.dpuf
Our goal should be to bring the minimum wage in line with minimum wage productivity. A proxy for that may be achieved by raising the minimum wage to the level of the real cost of minimum wage labor. That is, today, very likely, somewhere between 10 and 11 dollars an hour. If we do that, we can greatly reduce cost shifting and have a far more honest economy. Of course there are downsides to setting a minimum wage. The Heritage Foundation has, on its website, a long diatribe on all the downsides to raising the minimum wage. In my extremely humble opinion, however, all of the negatives are outweighed by the positives; the chief one being reduction of cost shifting, which is obtained by bringing the minimum wage to a level that closely reflects the actual cost of minimum wage labor. That level is currently somewhere between $10 and $15/hr, depending on locale. Setting the minimum wage near $10 makes good sense. In high cost of living areas, it will naturally seek a higher level.